Buddhism, Dialogue, Dorje Shugden Controversy, New Kadampa Tradition

by tenpelSeptember 2, 20143:03 pm

Trijang Rinpoche’s view on Shugden / Dolgyal: A trouble maker and killing spirit +++ The protesters never asked for a dialogue

H.H. the Dalai Lama (middle) and his two main tutors. On the right side of H.H. the Dalai Lama sits Kyabje Ling Rinpoche, his senior tutor and on the left side sits Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, his junior tutor.

Trijang Rinpoche’s view on Dorje Shugden / Dolgyal and why Shugden harms sentient beings

The Shugden protesters from the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) and their ICS spokes persons (usually a NKT teacher or a NKT representative of a country) run a Anti Dalai Lama campaign in which they totally ignore history and facts. The protesters suffer from one-sided information and from being largely misinformed. In a way the protesters protest against their own ignorance they project onto the Dalai Lama …

For instance the NKT/ICS protesters ignore the violent, controversial and sectarian background of Shugden worship and they are not aware that Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, the founder of NKT, presents them a white washed version of Shugden that makes Shugden more acceptable for Westerners and that is very much different than what the ‘root guru’ of Kelsang Gyatso, Trijang Rinpoche, himself taught about Shugden (see a bit about this in Carol McQuire’s SOAS talk).*

ICS spokes person and NKT’s Germany representative Gen Kelsang Ananda (Markus Rehnert) for instance answered to the leftist newspaper TAZ when confronted with the Yellow Book that mentions 23 government officials and lamas who have been assassinated using the deities power: “I don’t know that book.” Being confronted by the TAZ that this book was a key factor in the controversy Kelsang Ananda tried to escape the facts by answering “There are other texts that say the very opposite.” Also this answer ignored history and fact. Similarly, in 2008 Kelsang Pema, personal assistant of Kelsang Gyatso and spokes person of the Western Shugden Society claimed wrongly to the BBC: “It is a simple prayer that encourages people to develop pure minds of love, peace and compassion.” This ignorance regarding history and facts is a tool in the NKT introduced by Kelsang Gyatso and this tool makes the protesters the uninformed but willing army in Kelsang Gyatso’s unilateral battle against the Dalai Lama.

The NKT protesters ignore the Yellow Book since Kelsang Gyasto said, “I knew Zemey Tulku. However, I do not believe the information contained in The Yellow Book.[…] I would like to suggest to everybody to forget The Yellow Book. The Yellow Book was not written by Buddha, so why should we believe this?” He also says “I don’t know the real reason for his writing this book. Maybe this was his view and he was trying to prevent Gelugpa Lamas from engaging in Nyingma practices.” (see ‘Interview’ with Yvonne Nilles, a disciple of Kelsang Gyatso). This rejection of history and facts aims to deny or to suppress any negative inferences that can be drawn about the Shugden/Dolgyal cult from the “Yellow Book.” The Yellow Book contains the oral stories by Trijang Rinpoche about the violent nature of Dorje Shugden / Dolgyal.

Ok, if the NKT don’t accept the oral stories of Trijang Rinpoche, maybe they can get aware of his own writings?

Trijang Rinpoche’s view**

In Trijang Rinpoche’s text about Shugden, Music Delightning an Ocean of Protectors (PDF), Trijang Rinpoche clearly explains Shugden’s nature and way it arose. He says that Shugden / Dogyal is a mundane (ie. worldly) protector (p. 11), a damsi (vow breaking) spirit (p. 107) and a gyalpo spirit called Dolgyal (p. 109) that harms and kills sentient beings (p. 111–122 and more). About the violence Shugden brings to other sentient beings Trijang Rinpoche states (p. 121–122):

Furthermore, whether they were lords of Tibet, great lamas who held the political power of the throne, lamas and tulkus, great or small, with illustrious lines of incarnation, holy beings rich in scriptural and realized qualities, high lords of vast lands and works, those haughty with pride of family lineage, dominion and wealth, any who hypocritically claimed to be followers of Protector Manjusri Tsongkhapa’s Teachings while remaining unsatisfied with Je Lama’s precious Teachings of Sutra and Tantra which, in terms of view, meditation, and action, need not crave more from any other tradition, and, instead, mixed, polluted, or confused them with other modes of view and practice, whether lay or ordained, regardless of status, there have been many who have met with unpleasant wrathful punishments, such as being punished by authorities, litigation and legal disputes, untimely death, and so forth. Such swift, decisive signs appear to direct perception. Here praise is offered to that manifestation as a great wrathful protector who raises the Yellow Hat Teachings to the heights of the heavens.

This mundane harmful spirit is, according to Trijang Rinpoche, an emanation of Manjushri who emanated for the special purpose (p. 9) of protecting the purity of Tsongkhapa’s tradition and stopping Gelugpa’s taking teachings from other traditions.

HH Dalai Lama (and most Buddhists) doesn’t believe that Manjushri would emanate a mundane spirit to kill and harm sentient beings, but some lamas of his lineage teach exactly that. Kelsang Gyatso plays to a Western audience and says that these stories are just stories but they are told to stop Gelugpas taking teachings from other traditions. Therefore, the raison d’etre for the entire Shugden / Dogyal cult, coming from Dagpo Rinpoche, Pabongkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche, was to restrict the religious freedom of Gelugpas by threatening that if they didn’t stay away from other, particularly Nyingma, teachings, or in NKT speak, remain ‘pure and faithful practitioners’, Shugden / Dogyal would kill them. Trijang Rinpoche tells stories both of ‘hypocritical’ Gelugpas and people of other religions, like Bonpos, being killed by Shugden / Dogyal***.

If the NKT can easily disregard what Zemey Tulku wrote in the Yellow Book, can they also disregard what Kelsang Gyatso’s own ‘root guru’ wrote himself because it “was not written by Buddha, so why should we believe this?”

The protesters never asked for a dialogue

The NKT/ICS spokes persons repeatedly complained that the Dalai Lama would have refused to pick up a dialogue with them. The problem is that the protesters (NKT via their front groups Dorje Shugden International Coalition, SSC, WSS and ICS) never asked for a dialogue but issued unreasonable demands and ultimatums. Here is a brief overview of the ‘History of Dialogue’ the NKT was looking for.

The following petition was delivered to the Dalai Lama in New York on May 1st 1998 together with 12,000 signatures*, requesting him to sign the attached declaration:

OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS THE DALAI LAMA FROM THE DORJE SHUGDEN INTERNATIONAL COALITION

Your Holiness,

Out of your great compassion for us, please accept our following request.

As you know, many people both in the East and in the West, are openly saying that the worship of Dorje Shugden is harmful to your health, to the Tibetan cause, and to the development of the Nyingma Tradition. This false information is destroying peace and harmony within the Tibetan and Buddhist communities worldwide. Because of this, many people are losing their religious freedom and are consequently experiencing great suffering.

It is completely untrue that the worship of Dorje Shugden harms Tibetan independence, your health, and the development of the Nyingma Tradition. This is very clear; no one can give valid reasons to prove these statements.

To release many people from this suffering and to restore peace and harmony within the Buddhist community, from the depths of our hearts we request Your Holiness, please please accept our petition and sign the attached Declaration for the happiness and benefit of all. Our sole wish is that the four Tibetan Buddhist traditions flourish in harmony, free from sectarianism, and that all Tibetans and all other living beings may live in
freedom.

With respect and offerings,

Signed on behalf of the Dorje Shugden International Coalition
Morten Clausen
New York Representative of the Dorje Shugden International Coalition

DECLARATION

Many people are now believing and saying openly that the worship of Dorje Shugden is harmful to His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s health, the Tibetan cause, and the development of the Nyingma Tradition. This is completely untrue.

This false information is a cause of serious disharmony within the Tibetan and Buddhist communities, both in the East and in the West, and because of this many people are losing their religious freedom and are experiencing great suffering.

Therefore, I declare that from now on everyone has the complete freedom to worship Dorje Shugden, and that no one should interfere in any way with their worship.

Signed by
His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet

The following two letters were received in response to these demands:

1. May 4, 1998

Dear Morten Clausen,
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 1998. There is no possibility for an audience with His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

As for your wanting him to issue a declaration drafted by you, please find here a response from the Secretary of H.H. the Dalai Lama, Mr. Tenzin Geyche Tethong.

With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Dawa Tsering
Representative of H.H. the Dalai Lama

2. May 4, 1998

Dear Morten Clausen,

This is with reference to your petition to His Holiness the Dalai Lama along with a copy of a declaration that you want him to sign saying “everyone has the complete freedom to worship Dorje Shugden.” His Holiness cannot accede to your request to sign the declaration as it is in total contradiction to his carefully considered position on this practice.

Let me say at the onset that this is not an issue of religious freedom, as you portray. You are free to worship or practice what you wish. His
Holiness has said many times that it is his responsibility to provide correct spiritual guidance to his followers, but it is upto individuals whether they want to follow or not.

I would like to reiterate here briefly the three main reasons why His Holiness is advising Tibetan Buddhists against following this practice:

a) the nature of this practice is leading to the degeneration of the profound teachings of the Buddha into little more than spirit worship;

b) it is encouraging sectarianism, which is totally against His Holiness’ basic approach towards religious harmony, particularly within the Tibetan Buddhist traditions; and,

c) the Great Fifth, and the Thirteenth Dalai Lamas, as well as many other prominent Tibetan lamas, who are revered by the majority of Tibetans, have categorically stated the harmful effects of this practice.

Therefore, there is no way His Holiness can sign your declaration. You will recall that on an earlier occasion, too, Mrs. Chungdak Koren, His Holiness’s Representative stationed in Geneva, and myself met with some of your representatives at Caux, Switzerland, in 1996 and conveyed a similar message.

With warm wishes,
Yours sincerely,

Tenzin Geyche Tethong
Secretary to H.H. the Dalai Lama

see: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion.buddhism.nkt/dsg9o6YBgX0%5B126-150-false%5D

The NKT tried to force the Dalai Lama to sign a declaration that goes against his own investigation, research and opinion and is in favor of the opinion of Kelsang Gyatso / NKT. Is this a call for a dialogue?

In 2008, when the NKT started their second world wide media “against the Dalai Lama”**, via Western Shugden Society (WSS) the official website of the WSS stated:

“Dalai Lama, stop your lies, give religious freedom”

The purpose of this website is to expose the hypocrisy of the Dalai Lama who presents himself as a champion of human rights and defender of religious freedom while inflicting terrible human rights abuses on his own people and interfering with the religious freedom of thousands and thousands of people around the world.

The site is presented by the Western Shugden Society (WSS), an ad hoc coalition of Dorje Shugden practitioners from many different countries. The immediate aims of the WSS are expressed in a recent letter we sent to the Dalai Lama.

Because the Dalai Lama refuses even to acknowledge our correspondence, let alone enter into meaningful dialog, we are left with no alternative but to organize protest demonstrations wherever the Dalai Lama teaches. We will continue to organize demonstrations to coincide with the Dalai Lama’s schedule until he agrees to our requests.

We hope that through our actions, international scrutiny will be brought to bear on the Dalai Lama’s lies and actions of religious persecution so that the Tibetans he is oppressing will receive justice and Dorje Shugden practitioners around the world will receive religious freedom.

What was the ‘correspondence’ and ‘meaningful dialogue’ the NKT claimed to seek? It were against unreasonable demands (see Tibetan Situation Today, PDF):

12th April 2008
To the Dalai Lama of Tibet,

We the Western Shugden Society ask you to accomplish four things:

To give freedom to practice Dorje Shugden to whoever wishes to rely upon this Deity.

To stop completely the discrimination between Shugden people and non-Shugden practitioners.

To allow all Shugden monks and nuns who have been expelled from their monasteries and nunneries to return to their monasteries and nunneries where they should receive the same material and spiritual rights as the non-Shugden practitioners.

That you tell in writing to the Tibetan community throughout the world that they should practically apply the above three points.

Do you accept these four points? We require your answer by the 22 April 2008, signed and delivered by registered post to:

Western Shugden Society
c/o Dorje Shugden Devotees Society,
House No 105, Old Tibetan Camp, Majnu Ka Tilla, Delhi-54

With a copy of your letter sent to the following email address:
western_shugden_society@live.com

These demands are unreasonable because Dorje Shugden practitioners have freedoms. They can practice privately and at their own monasteries and places. It is the freedom of others to restrict a practice that they regard as harmful and oppressing religious freedom, similar how nowadays smokers are banned from public places but can smoke at their own places. The majority of the monasteries have the right to ban a practice at the institutional level that is not in accordance with their understanding of Buddhist practice and that brings disharmony. The rights of the majority have to be considered too. Banning Shugden practice from the monastery grounds was based on a majority vote that is according to the Vinaya as laid down by the Buddha (see ‘Stick Referendum ’). Going against this majority vote would make the Dalai Lama indeed a dictator. The Vinaya Stick Referendum and its outcome has to be accepted by both, the Dalai Lama and the Shugden protesters.

What we experience now with the ICS in 2014 is just a repetition of the past. The NKT’s/ICS’s unreasonable demands for ‘dialogue’ – which they do not actually seek – are addressed in this post:

Kelsang Rabten Calls for Dialogue at the SOAS Conference: Is Dialogue Possible? 2014/08/23

* This number can be doubted because the NKT and their front groups were witnessed for creating signatures by invented names and persons.
** Letter by Kelsang Gyatso to his students: “[…] To stop this evil action, as the representative of the Western Shugden Society, I personally will organise demonstrations against the Dalai Lama directly. I requested Kelsang Pema and Kelsang Thubchen to do this job for me and they have accepted. Please help Pema and Thubchen with whatever they need. With much love and prayers, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso”

Update 31 Oct 2014

A dialogue had been arranged in London, at Tibet House, in 1996 between representatives of the Tibetan Government in Exile and Jim Belither and Lucy James of the NKT, amongst others. However, whilst these NKT members were on the train from Yorkshire to the meeting, a person on the train suffered a heart attack and the train was delayed. This was interpreted by the NKT members as an inauspicious sign and because of this as well as the fact that the time of the meeting coincided with a demonstration arranged at Eccleston Square, (the Buddhist Society I assume), they did not attend the meeting. The meeting was interpreted as a trap to disturb the arranged demonstration and no other meeting was arranged.

99Comments

Add yours

1

jigmeyeshe on September 2, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Reply

I have recently had information given to me from a reliable source who said that a meeting had been arranged in London, at Tibet House, in 1996 between representatives of the Tibetan Government in Exile and Jim Belither and Lucy James of the NKT, amongst others. However, whilst these NKT members were on the train from Yorkshire to the meeting, a person on the train suffered a heart attack and the train was delayed. This was interpreted by the NKT members as an inauspicious sign and because of this as well as the fact that the time of the meeting coincided with a demonstration arranged at Eccleston Square, (the Buddhist Society I assume), they did not attend the meeting. The meeting was interpreted as a trap to disturb the arranged demonstration and no other meeting was arranged.
- 2
  
  tenpel on September 2, 2014 at 3:23 pm
  Reply
  
  Interesting, thank you. I didn’t know that. What is the source of this information (if you can state it)?
- 3
  
  Dorje on September 2, 2014 at 5:43 pm
  Reply
  
  Interesting given that Pabongkha praised dogyal for making people “become unhinged and mad, […] have a heart attack and suddenly die.” Sad this toxic lineage thinks a “Buddha” would act in such a way.
  - 4
    
    tenpel on September 2, 2014 at 6:19 pm
    Reply
    
    From what source is this, Dorje?
    - 5
      
      Dorje on September 2, 2014 at 7:20 pm
      Reply
      
      Pabongkha’s Supplement to the Explanation of the Preliminaries of the Srog gtad (rgyal chen srog gtad gyi sngon ‘gro bshad pa’i mtshams sbyor kha bskong) Pabongkha’s sung’bum, Volume 7
      http://tbrc.org/#library_work_ViewByOutline-O01PD4d1e2989|W3834
6

Joanne on September 2, 2014 at 5:10 pm
Reply

When I read the section above on Trijang Rinpoche, the first thought that came to mind was Rabten’s statement at the SOAS conference, in response to scriptural citations from Geshe Tashi. He said, “You have your sources. We have ours.”

I mean, how polarized is that?

In reading recent publications by the ISC, it seems to me that they are busy creating their own sources– both scriptural and historical, creating their own reality, further and further from the real world. I would be interested in their response to the quotations from Trijang Rinpoche.
- 7
  
  tenpel on September 2, 2014 at 5:50 pm
  Reply
  
  You got it. They create their own world that is not concordant with reality. It’s the NKT WORLD.
- 8
  
  Sam Hoff on September 2, 2014 at 11:53 pm
  Reply
  
  Another example is that on dorjeshugden.com they say that Buddhas CAN be channeled into oracles.
  
  When they said this recently, I was just flabbergasted.
9

Sam Hoff on September 2, 2014 at 5:10 pm
Reply

It is very easy to rebut all the NKT Trijang Rinpoche stuff:

1. There is no picture of Kelsang Gyatso and Trijang Rinpoche together.
2. NKT ignores Trijang Rinpoche’s views in the Yellow Book
3. Dalai Lama had explicit anti-Shugden teachers such as Trulshik Rinpoche.
- 10
  
  tenpel on September 2, 2014 at 5:49 pm
  Reply
  
  That there is no picture of KG & TR doesn’t prove any thing. True that KG ignores the views “of his own root guru” – Maybe he “broke with his own root guru”, not accepting his views? Also the senior tutor of HHDL Ling Rinpoche was against Shugden, also Dilgo Rinpoche & many others …
  - 11
    
    Joanne on September 2, 2014 at 11:00 pm
    Reply
    
    But in the world created by ISC/NKT, Ling Rinpoche was not against Shugden. In this world, this is what is said: “Publicly [the Dalai Lama] gives Je Tsongkhapa’s teachings that he received from his Teachers – Trijang Rinpoche and Ling Rinpoche – but he is acting against the teachings of Je Tsongkhapa, Trijang Rinpoche and Ling Rinpoche.” and “the present Dalai Lama, the Fourteenth, is going against the wishes of his Spiritual Guides, Trijang Rinpoche and Ling Rinpoche.”
    
    They also speak of Ling Rinpoche consecrating statues of Shugden and dying “with deep disappointment because the Dalai Lama refused his request to stop encouraging Gelugpas to practise the Nyingma Tradition.”
    
    And on and on and on…
    - 12
      
      Sam Hoff on September 2, 2014 at 11:47 pm
      Reply
      
      I agree with Joanne. Its easier to point out clear anti-Shugden gurus of HHDL such as Trulshik Rinpoche.
    - 13
      
      tenpel on September 3, 2014 at 8:37 am
      Reply
      
      The NKT/ICS went so far as t claim on their website that the Dalai Lama stole the teachings from his teachers.
      
      Throughout your life you have pretended to be a Buddhist holy being giving Buddhist teachings that you have stolen from Trijang Rinpoche. By doing this, you have cheated people throughout the world.
      
      What a crooked mind who writes such things. It reflects on the person who wrote it too. Obviously the person, Kelsang Gyatso, thinks that a teacher owns the teachings and can have control over it.
      
      BTW, with respect to Zemey Rinpoche, he was not very strong on Shugden. He felt just it was important to write down the oral stories by Trijang Rinpoche. He later got a stroke when I remember correctly but before he died he made his peace with His Holiness. Ling Rinpoche never practiced Shugden and said, that although he agrees with the other teachings by Pabongkha Rinpoche, he doesn’t agree at all on his stance on Shugden. I got this personally from a close student of him. He showed different times displeasure with this practice or when Shugden was mentioned.
  - 14
    
    Sam Hoff on September 2, 2014 at 11:45 pm
    Reply
    
    That there is no picture of Kelsang Gyatso and Trijang Rinpoche shows that they did not have a close relationship.
15

Sam Hoff on September 2, 2014 at 5:20 pm
Reply

tenpel,

I think this is the most important and useful post you have done in a long time.
- 16
  
  tenpel on September 2, 2014 at 5:51 pm
  Reply
  
  Thanks to Dorje ! Who pointed the first part of the post out in the comment section …
  - 17
    
    Dorje on September 2, 2014 at 7:56 pm
    Reply
    
    Yes, I think the Trijang Rinpoche bits were from a post I wrote to you, Sam, on the Last Upholder of the Gelug Mahamudra thread.
    https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2014/08/03/the-last-upholder-of-the-gelug-mahamudra-tradition-geshe-kelsang-gyatso/
    There is probably lots more to say about what Trijang Rinpoche wrote and how that totally contradicts what the NKT teach. One point Trijang Rinpoche makes is that as HH Dalai Lama (especially the Great Fifth) is a holy being and Dolgyal is an emanation, it is wrong to disparage either and those that do will face unfortunate consequences.
    “Some who are narrow minded, not understanding this point, consider this Dharmapala to be like an ordinary worldly being and, with supposed faith in the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, disparage him; or else they indeed admire this great Dharmapala but criticize the Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama. Using either one as a reason not to admire the other and speaking badly about either in any way is the conduct of an ordinary being who, under the influence of attachment and hatred, just tries to help friends and hurt enemies; it obscures the increase of these great holy Aryas’ deeds and creates the karmic cause to experience unbearable suffering in the future.” p125.
    
    Of course, if you don’t agree with Trijang Rinpoche that this ’emanation’ praised for killing and harming sentient beings is actually an emanation, you can probably take all his advice on how to view dolgyal with a pinch of salt. But if you agree with Trijang Rinpoche’s teachings on Dolgyal and base your support for this protector on what your root lama says, as supposedly Kelsang Gyatso does, shouldn’t you take what he says about disparaging HH Dalai Lama seriously?
    
    Previously Kelsang made clear that he respected neither the 5th, nor 13th, nor 14th Dalai Lamas.
    “I am simply saying that the 5th Dalai Lama was misusing his political power to weaken the other
    traditions, and this is not correct. […] This is a Tibetan problem, if Lamas do not involve themselves in politics then there is no basis for this problem. I don’t want to judge other practitioners, but personally I do not visualize the 5th, 13th or 14th Dalai Lamas.”
    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.religion.buddhism/r-MXKVy6GnE/0lnoBIEEMj4J
    
    As I say, lots more to look into with Trijang Rinpoche’s book and the way Kelsang Gyatso’s approach contradicts it. Read it yourself and make up your own mind. I am totally of the opinion that the more that is known about this protector cult, coming from Pabongkha and his student’s, the more clear it will be that HH Dalai Lama’s advice to keep well away will be seen as totally reasonable and sound. The NKT get away with spreading their propaganda because most people are ignorant of the teachings surrounding this protector. Lifting the lid and exposing the poison of it is the only way to get to the truth.
    - 18
      
      tenpel on September 2, 2014 at 8:48 pm
      Reply
      
      Thank you Dorje for all of your input and quotes! So Trijang Rinpoche, the ‘root guru’ of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, tells Keslang Gyatso and the NKT students in his own works that due to their disparagement of the Dalai Lama as a cruel and evil dictator, they
      
      will face unfortunate consequences.
      
      Some who are narrow minded, not understanding this point, consider this Dharmapala to be like an ordinary worldly being and, with supposed faith in the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, disparage him; or else they indeed admire this great Dharmapala but criticize the Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama. Using either one as a reason not to admire the other and speaking badly about either in any way is the conduct of an ordinary being who, under the influence of attachment and hatred, just tries to help friends and hurt enemies; it obscures the increase of these great holy Aryas’ deeds and creates the karmic cause to experience unbearable suffering in the future.
      
      Maybe the DS-Com-Site should sent urgent booklets and posters with Trijang Rinpoche’s own words to Kelsang Gyatso, Rabten, Khyenrab and the NKT protesters instead of flooding Sharon Stone or Kenue Reeves with their propaganda material 😉
    - 19
      
      Lobsang on February 6, 2015 at 11:46 pm
      Reply
      
      I agree with you Dorje. The NKT and others as well are spreading a lot of misinformation about Trijang Rinpoche. But they are doing so with Pabongka Rinpoche as well. With the advice of my teachers – all are strong followers of His Holiness the Dalai Lama – I had to do a work about Pabongka Rinpoche next to Lhasa, Tibet. His strong followers in that area are non-Shugden practitioners. It is said by important Geluk Lamas, that he himself treated Shugden as a spirit. To some degree, I believe, Pabongka Rinpoche may push forward the practice of Shugden, but being an accomplished master, he must had a reason doing so.
      - 20
        
        tenpel on February 8, 2015 at 3:57 pm
        Reply
        
        Very true. Even the idea of “not mixing Dharma with politics” the “purity distinction” and identity for NKT is non-sense. Trijang Rinpoche was very clever in politics and the Chinese hated him for that. When HHDL had political questions is was Ling Rinpoche who refused to answer them because he was dedicated only to Dharma topics and he asked HHDL to ask instead Trijang Rinpoche. Of course also Pabongkha was a politician, he as a government agent in Kham …
21

Khedrup on September 2, 2014 at 5:59 pm
Reply

I’ve always felt that the calls for dialogue are a complete farce, and the above prove it, as there has already been a meeting with HHDL’s representatives in Geneva, and a meeting scheduled in the United Kingdom, which the NKT opted out of due to a superstitious reading of someone falling ill on a train (ridiculous).

I honestly believe that even if Tibet House or the Dalai Lama’s Private Office contacted NKT for a meeting tomorrow, they wouldn’t budge? Why is this? The protests are too useful and addictive for them at this point.

I have been speaking to several recovering former members of the NKT and a common theme in their stories is having to pretend not to get angry and always be “peaceful” despite feeling these very real (and human) emotions. Without true practice trying to maintain a false image of peace leads to deep stress on the psyche. The protests provide an addictive release of all that negative energy for the NKT faithful, a place to direct all that pent up anger and anxiety, and direct it against a convenient enemy (HH Dalai Lama) in the name of “virtue”

Really, rather than spending money on protests they should be booking appointments with psychotherapists.
- 22
  
  tenpel on September 2, 2014 at 6:22 pm
  Reply
  
  True. The protests are addictive for power reasons (you create a lot of attention serving in the shadow of the Dalai Lama) and because it eases repressed feelings of NKT devotees.
23

stevemaxwellimp on September 2, 2014 at 7:12 pm
Reply

From this it appears that we can conclude that for Trijang Rinpoche it is possible for a mundane protector to also be an emanation of an enlightened being. So, what is such an emanation? I understand that an enlightened being can emanate as any thing, object etc. and that it would be strange to acknowledge something such as a football as an enlightened being even if Chenrezig had emanated it. Yet I see the NKT arguing that since (they claim) Shugden is an emanation of Manjushri; therefore, Shugden is enlightened, Shugden is Manjushri. Where is the error?
- 24
  
  tenpel on September 2, 2014 at 7:25 pm
  Reply
  
  If something is emanated from a Buddha you treat it according to reality because it performs a specific function. If the Buddha emanated as a mute beggar you wouldn’t ask the beggar to teach you dharma, placing him on a throne because the mute beggar cannot perform that function. Similar an emanated vengeful spirit cannot perform the function of a “wisdom Buddha”. Your example with the football is correct. Similar, if your child is an emanation of a Buddha but behaves strangely or violently you don’t pray to your child but you might to have use forceful means to stop its violent actions.
  - 25
    
    Dorje on September 2, 2014 at 8:15 pm
    Reply
    
    Indeed, Steve. Buddhas are said to emanate as cool breezes on hot days, or clean water to the thirsty. Should hot and thirsty people spend their time prostrating to the cool breeze and clean water rather than using it to clench their thirst and cool themselves down? If so, the Buddha’s compassionate act would have been pointless.
    Obviously, I object to the idea that a Buddha would emanate as a spirit that harms and kills sentient beings, even if the purpose is to ‘protect’ the Gelug tradition. This act of ‘protection’ seems nothing more than a sectarian political act, stopping Gelugpas from taking teachings from other teachers who may have also, like Jamyang Khyenyse or Jamgon Kongtrul, have also been enamations of Manjushri. Why would Manjushri wish to kill people that took teachings from his other emanations?
    The conventional truth of Dolgyal was always a gyalpo spirit, and Tsongkhapa emphasised the importance of going by conventional rather than ultimate truth. Neglecting conventional truth leads to a rejection of cause and effect and this, for Gelugpas, would never do.
    - 26
      
      tenpel on September 2, 2014 at 8:50 pm
      Reply
      
      Well said, well said. Again thank you very much.
      - 27
        
        Namkhah on September 2, 2014 at 10:07 pm
        Reply
        
        The time-sensitive ultimatum/threat is the letter writing style of choice for the cult.
        For example:
        Open Letter to The Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile from the ISC, dated March 27th 2014.
        (After stating “You are lying!” in their opening sentence, ISC concludes with this call to action): “We need your reply to be posted on your website by no later than 29th March 2014. If we do not receive your reply with your three valid reasons,…by this date, then it will be internationally recognized that the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile and the Dalai Lama are lying.”
        So after these dates come and go what happens? Kelsang turns into a pumpkin or the zombie uprising commences?
      - 28
        
        stevemaxwellimp on September 3, 2014 at 9:31 pm
        Reply
        
        Thank you Tenpel and Dorje.
29

jigmeyeshe on September 2, 2014 at 10:33 pm
Reply

You quote this phrase from Kelsang Gyatso in his interview with Yvonne Nilles. Perhaps Kelsang Gyatso was telling the truth about his view of Zemey Rinpoche, that he wasn’t sure why he ‘wrote it’.

Two points – one, that the Yellow Book was secretly circulated in the NKT during the demos of the 1990s, but we do not know if that was with the consent of Kelsang Gyatso or not.

Secondly, I have now heard a different ‘view’ of this whole story, from someone who has long term contact with the Tibetan diaspora, which particularly concerns Zemey Rinpoche, who they believe has been wrongly accused of creating the ‘Yellow Book’ as a sectarian provocation. This story may already exist elsewhere, but for me, it lies in between the Shugdenpas version and the non-Shugdenpas version. As always, circumstances are complex and in reality, the ‘sides’ in these issues are never clearly delineated.

As follows, paraphrased:

‘Zemey Rinpoche, in 1983, gave a teaching at May Cottage,[ in the Lake District, UK?] That there was some discussion about Trijang Rinpoche’s Collected Works, of which one volume is dedicated to Shugden practice. Some verses were about ‘not mixing’ practices. That Zemey Rinpoche suggested that this be kept separate as it could give offence – that it was only advice for a small group of students, whilst being trained, so that they would focus on their studies, and not meant for general distribution or as general advice.

However, someone decided to make money by publishing this ‘advice’ as a separate ‘Yellow Book’; this publisher was definitely not Zemey Rinpoche, and a copy was sent to Gene Smith and the Tibetan Congress/Tibet House. Dongthong Rinpoche worked there, found a copy, and was so shocked when he read it that he immediately wrote a rebuttal by hand. His Holiness, on seeing this ‘Yellow Book’, said that this had created ‘too many problems’ and never talked to Zemey Rinpoche again. Zemey Rinpoche had been a great and kind teacher – creating text books and so on. He was Thubten Jinpa’s main teacher (the Dalai Lama’s translator).

That ‘Shugden’ had been developed as a practice to unify people during the exodus from Tibet which is why so many of the Gelugs practised it. And Trijang Rinpoche, in Buxar, used to ‘collect lost lamas’ and teach them this practice (Kelsang Gyatso was one of these and he was also definitely seen at Dalai Lama initiations in Lhasa). Then there were ‘Shugden’ practitioners claiming to be followers of Pabongkha destroying monasteries; Zong Rinpoche said that true Shugden practitioners would not do this, that the ‘true’ students of Pabongkha were himself, Ling Rinpoche, etc, would would not be telling people to do this. But people connected to these monasteries become very anti-Pabongkha, particularly a group in Nepal in the 1980s. And the Chinese also used Shugden to create sectarian strife and subversion. To prevent these conflicts deepening, His Holiness asked people to stop the practice and said that he would take on any negativity involved when people stopped, but many people didn’t. And people who didn’t do Shugden any more were very zealous going against those who still did it, insulting them.

So, at the time of the crisis of Neil Eliot in the NKT, people jumped onto the bandwagon as to why the Dalai Lama had restricted this practice. There was already the issue of Manjushri Institute being taken from the FPMT and the destruction of the library. Kelsang Gyatso’s great idea had been to give westerners very simple Dharma, even the Shugden was very simple – just the Ganden Lhagema with half a dozen verses to Shugden and some mantras. So the strength of the NKT is in the simple things you have to do to be part of the group, nothing complicated. Kelsang Gyatso was not renowned for being particularly kind or wise or with any realizations but he interpreted the Dharma in his own way.’
- 30
  
  tenpel on September 2, 2014 at 11:49 pm
  Reply
  
  You quote this phrase from Kelsang Gyatso in his interview with Yvonne Nilles. Perhaps Kelsang Gyatso was telling the truth about his view of Zemey Rinpoche, that he wasn’t sure why he ‘wrote it’.
  
  The problem is that Kelsang Gyatso invents history. He wrongly claims that there has never been a problem between different schools and that “until the Dalai Lama’s ban” all traditions, including Nyingma and Gelug, lived in peace and harmony. He is an inventor of history and the NKT history is invented too. He bents history until his misrepresentations meet his own view. The statement about Zemey Rinpoche is just a piece in his attempt to rewrite history.
  - 31
    
    Sam Hoff on September 2, 2014 at 11:58 pm
    Reply
    
    That’s quite ironic. The current Dalai Lama is universally regarded as bringing harmony to all the schools of Tibetan Buddhism, to the point that Dolgyalpas have accused him of merging all the schools.
    
    So Dolgyalpas can’t even be consistent it seems.
- 32
  
  Namkhah on September 3, 2014 at 3:05 am
  Reply
  
  jigmeyeshe: That’s a very interesting post.
  Zemey Tulku did indeed work on grammar and history textbooks collaborating with H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche, Thartse Rinpoche and Khyongla Rinpoche. Lobsang P. Lhalungpa was the editor and the publisher was W.G. Kundeling (the real one!) Nice when everyone got along.
  The attribution of The Yellow Book reads DZESMAD SPRUL MING PA BLO BZANG DPAL LDAN BSTAN ‘DZIN YAR RGYAS SU ‘BOD PAS SBYAR]. DELHI : 1973, there is no mistake there–although its understandable that parties would like to put distance between themselves and the publication of The Yellow Book which can only be described as major blunder. Anecdotally we understand the ‘infallible’ Trijang Rinpoche liked The Yellow Book so much, he bought up most of the edition. Many pechas are not really meant for general readers. In those days a number Tibetans did publishing with Gene Smith for business, it was one of the few things to do in Delhi–so long as the US Library of Congress was buying–the rest of the copies could be donated and also sold. Tibetan men and women also worked touching up the negatives for the plates in Old Delhi print shops.
  When one considers that The Yellow Book was considered by many as a lightly veiled threat to the person of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, the strong reaction becomes understandable. Furthermore Trijang Rinpoche advocated Gelugpa hegemony for all Tibetans as a survival strategy in the early years of the refugee crisis, when nothing was certain. This proposal was rejected by HH the 16th Karmapa, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Sakya Trinzen and HH Dudjom Rinpoche among others. It is in this context of sectarian chauvinism that The Yellow Book is understood. The fictive narrative of the cult that HHDL is now destroying the dharma is completely wrong, rather he has tirelessly encouraged the survival of diversity.
  Finally, it is interesting to hear that Kelsang Gyatso did attend Kundun’s teaching in Lhasa, that means he is a samaya breaker and on that point he does not tell the truth.
  - 33
    
    jigmeyeshe on September 3, 2014 at 1:03 pm
    Reply
    
    Did he buy them up so that people would not read them? Or did he distribute them? Zemey Rinpoche sounds like he was caught up in this, like so many people are …
- 34
  
  tenpel on September 3, 2014 at 8:46 am
  Reply
  
  Thank you jigmeyeshe, I only read this now. My informant, very close over a long time to the the Tibetan diaspora, told me that Zemey Rinpoche collected the stories but he was not fond of the sectarian idea behind it rather he was thinking Trijang Rinpoche told those stories, hence they should be collected somewhere. He was not much interested in the Shugden stuff. Later he got a stroke and could not speak (when I remember correctly) but before he died, he and the Dalai Lama met and Zemey Rinpoche made his peace with him.
  - 35
    
    Namkhah on September 3, 2014 at 11:13 am
    Reply
    
    Tenpel that is not the account as related by T.G. Dhonthog Rinpoche, who indicates Zemey was quite interested in ‘the Shugden stuff’:
    “in 1987, in blatant opposition to His Holiness’ advice, Dzeme (Zemey) commissioned the construction of Shugden statues made in the manner of the “five Buddha families” for the consecration of the New Samten Choling monastery in Darjeeling, India. The morning consecration ceremony was about to take place, Dzeme Tulku suffered a sudden stroke as a punishment from Rahula, the protector of Buddhist Atiyoga Tantra. Since that time, he remained physically and vocally disabled until his death in 1996.”
    I was also told that around the same time, the main clay idol of Dolgyal at Samten Choling from the early 20th century, split wide open spontaneously and was ruined, not surprising since the place is extremely damp and rainy.
    - 36
      
      tenpel on September 3, 2014 at 1:35 pm
      Reply
      
      If you have a closer look on T.G. Dhonthog Rinpoche’s text, it is very polemical and I found it at times not very reasonable. It was written in my eyes based on emotional feelings so I would take that with a grain of salt.
      
      The person who told me this is a reliable person I trust. However, it wouldn’t make me wonder to learn that there are different accounts 😉
- 37
  
  Sam Hoff on September 3, 2014 at 2:15 pm
  Reply
  
  If the Yellow Book was extracted from the collected works of Trijang Rinpoche, can’t this be proven through TBRC?
  - 38
    
    Dorje on September 3, 2014 at 8:38 pm
    Reply
    
    It wasn’t extracted from TR’s collected works. It’s in Zemey’s collected works, though, as should be obvious from reading Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors, Trijang Rinpoche also taught what the Yellow Book taught and provided a few examples.
- 39
  
  Dorje on September 3, 2014 at 8:36 pm
  Reply
  
  The point in quoting the interview with Yvonne Nilles was that Kelsang Gyatso responded to the partial translation of ‘the Yellow Book’ as if he had no idea what it was about, who would have taught it and why they would have written it. This seems to me to be completely disingenuous given that the teachings came from his root lama and would have been well known to Kelsang and anyone else that had been initiated into the dogyal cult.
  I’m not sure what you mean by the positions of the shugdenpas and non-shugdenpas. It seems to me there are at least three ‘sides’: Gelugpa’s that support dogyal, Gelugpas that oppose dogyal but are apologists for Trijang Rinpoche, and non-Gelugpas. The version you present falls into the second category.
  I get frustrated by all this talk of the Yellow Book because it completely misses the point that violent sectarianism was part of the dogyal cult since before Pabongka popularised it last century, before Zemey Tulku was born, and over 50 years before the diaspora. Dagpo Rinpoche wrote in his main verses of praise to dogyal:
  “Those who mix or pollute the Ganden teachings,
  Whether great beings, ordinary beings, or powerful lords,
  You grind into particles of dust, O Deity,
  Protector of the Yellow Hat Teachings, praise to you!”
  
  Admittedly, the Yellow Book adds lots of bloody detail but the stories in “Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors” also includes a number of very similar stories. For example:
  
  “Domo Geshe Rinpoche Ngawang Kelsang, a supreme being who spreads the light of the Geden Teachings to all directions, had newly built and established the White Conch Monastery and its resident monastic community. He also instituted pure practices of the rituals of Sutra and Tantra such as those for increasing, expanding, and setting the foundation of the Sangha community endowed with pure view, conduct and lifestyle, thus enacting wondrous deeds for the flourishing of the Geden Tradition. Nearby was a community called Pumo Gang in upper Domo that practiced Shenrab’s Bon system. Their lamas, monks, and patrons were made jealous by the new monastery, made various accusatory claims against their property, lands, and offices, and brought false litigation against the Lama, Dharmapala [dogyal], Sangha and their patrons for months and years together. Finally, one of their petitions came to court and Geshe Rinpoche had to immediately go to Lhasa, and so forth. All of the lamas and monks of White Conch Monastery were put under extreme duress for about two years. At that time, the prime antagonist, Gongtu Tsultrim, vomited blood, and he and two others died under various circumstances. The Bon hermitage had internal dissension among their lamas and monks, and was accused of wrongdoing. The Lama of Sharma named Dondrub Tsering, traveling crosscountry, fell off a precipice and died. In regard to a new Bon Lama who arrived and began practicing black magic spells focusing on White Conch Monastery, Dharmapala said, ‘Father will annihilate him in the year of the fire‐bird.’ He died three days later. The Pumo Gang hermitage was damaged by fire, and so forth, they were annihilated by various signs of swift decisive activity, and the litigation was automatically dismissed. The great spiritual guide Ngawang Kelsang and his disciples raised the banner of victory in spiritual and temporal realms and spread the complete, unmistaken, excellent path. It is in regard to this that praise is offered, here.” (p122)
  
  So, according to Trijang Rinpoche, the enlightened emanation that should be a refuge for all beings killed five sentient beings because it was annoyed that they were causing problems for those that supported it. In other words, it acted with “the conduct of an ordinary being who, under the influence of attachment and hatred, just tries to help friends and hurt enemies.” (p125)
  
  Or maybe you would prefer another example where Trijang praises dogyal for killing Buddhists rather than Bonpos?:
  “Also, at times such as when Lhasa Tengyaling’s Demo Rinpoche Lozang Trinley Rabgye was the Lord responsible for looking after the political welfare of Tibet, there were Nyingma Lamas such as Nyag Trul and various other Tantric practitioners at Tengye Ling Labrang practicing Nyingma Teachings. At that time Nagsho Dagpu Dorje Chang Padma Vajra Shri Bhadra was staying at his monastic seat. Once when he was going to the Prayer Festival gathering in the morning he saw a lasso of fire circling the parapet of Tengyeling. He asked his tutor about it, a great being named Drepung Lhotrul Rinpoche Ngawang Kyenrab Tenpay Wangchug, who said it was a miraculous manifestation of Shugden. Not long after, Demo Rinpoche, as the head of the monastery, took the blame for a black magic attack against the Dalai Lama Thubten Gyatso, was put in prison and died from the bad conditions. Dagpu Dorje Chang also says he heard that the property of Tengye Ling Labrang had been taken by the government.”
  Trijang Rinpoche then alludes to the Yellow Book and the stories it contains:
  “There are many stories of this sort that are worth discussing but, not wishing to make this too long, at present I would only like to cite this brief example.” (p122)
  This is what Zemey Tulku is referring to when he says,
  “Kyabje Yongzin Trijang Dorjeechang told me some highly interesting accounts which he had not written for publication.”
  No teachings on protector practices, indeed no tantric practices are meant for ‘general distribution’, but it would be entirely false to suggest that the teaching that dogyal kills nonsectarian Gelugpas and others wasn’t integral to the dogyal cult by the time that Trijang Rinpoche taught Zemey Tulku about dogyal.
  Some examples given to illustrate this teaching were included in the Yellow Book which was then written down by Zemey Tulku and published by the Zemey labrang (in Zemey Tulku’s Sung’bum vol2 p571-650) which distances Trijang Rinpoche from them, but Trijang Rinpoche also gave the exact teaching that the Yellow Book illustrates, that those “remaining unsatisfied with Je Lama’s precious Teachings of Sutra and Tantra, […] mixed, polluted, or confused them with other modes of view and practice, […]have met with unpleasant wrathful punishments, such as being punished by authorities, litigation and legal disputes, untimely death.”
  This is the exact same teaching that Pabongkha gave, who said:
  “many from our own side, monks or lay people, high or low, are not content with Dzong-ka-ba’s tradition, which is like pure gold, [and] have mixed and corrupted [this tradition with ] the mistaken views and practices from other schools, which are tenet systems that are reputed to be incredibly profound and amazingly fast but are [in reality] mistakes among mistakes, faulty, dangerous and misleading paths. In regard to this situation, this protector of the doctrine, this witness, manifests his own form or a variety of unbearable manifestations of terrifying and frightening wrathful and fierce appearances. Due to that, a variety of events, some of them having happened or happening, some of which have been heard or seen, seem to have taken place: some people become unhinged and mad, some have a heart attack and suddenly die, some [see] through a variety of inauspicious signs [their] wealth, accumulated possessions and descendants disappear without leaving any trace, like a pond whose feeding river has ceased, whereas some [find it] difficult to achieve anything in successive lifetimes.” rgyal chen srog gtad gyi sngon ‘gro bshad pa’i mtshams sbyor kha bskong
  
  Pabongkha’s sectarianism, evident in this quotation, his letters to the Chinese military general Lui Chun Tang, and his teachings elsewhere, show the violent sectarianism was part of the lineage and not just his zealous students misunderstanding his teachings. I understand that some would prefer all of the nasty stuff just to be in the Yellow Book and then have the Yellow Book explained away and ignored, but this is really misunderstanding the point that with or without the Yellow Book Dvagpo Rinpoche, Pabongbkhapa and Trijang Rinpoche all praised their protector for killing sentient beings and especially Gelugpas that take teachings from other valid Buddhist traditions.
40

Sam Hoff on September 2, 2014 at 11:43 pm
Reply

Robert Barnett says the protests are for “misinformed publicity for their sect”.
41

Trijang Rinpoche Quoted as Calling Shugden a “Mundane Protector.” | The Truth Behind the Protests and Smear Campaign Against the Dalai Lama on September 3, 2014 at 1:00 pm
Reply

[…] spirit called Dolgyal (p. 109) that harms and kills sentient beings (p. 111–122 and more). See here for a more complete […]
42

Sam Hoff on September 3, 2014 at 2:07 pm
Reply

Maybe another important point is that Trijang Rinpoche only became junior tutor when the Dalai Lama was an adult.
- 43
  
  tenpel on September 3, 2014 at 2:18 pm
  Reply
  
  The tutors are rather seen as servants. Kelsang Gyatso inverted this principle by placing Trijang Rinpoche above HH the Dalai Lama. Trijang Rinpoche would never hold such a view. It is the same with the Karmapa. He has teachers but he is seen higher than them and the teachers respect the student Karmapa higher than themselves … You can see this already on the images, who is at the center when tutors and high lamas such as HHDL or Karmapa are together? It is not Trijang Rinpoche!
  - 44
    
    tenpel on September 3, 2014 at 2:22 pm
    Reply
    
    Actual, Kelsang Gyatso and his NKT devotees abuse Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche and the topic of ‘root guru’ like a weapon against the Dalai Lama. What a shame …
  - 45
    
    Sam Hoff on September 3, 2014 at 2:22 pm
    Reply
    
    Great picture. Maybe should be permanently on the front page. Just a suggestion.
    - 46
      
      tenpel on September 3, 2014 at 2:24 pm
      Reply
      
      Look who sits an a golden chair, Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche?
  - 47
    
    Namkhah on September 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm
    Reply
    
    It is notable that the official Jangchup Lamrim Teachings by HH the 14th Dalai Lama website has biographies of both Pobangkhapa and Khyabje Trijang Rinpoche both of whom HHDL often cites respectfully.
    It is only the convoluted infallibility conundrum of the cult that is an aberration, for the most part they never knew Trijang Rinpoche, Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso (1901–1981) or had any relationship with him at all let alone lineage.
    http://www.jangchuplamrim.org/jangchup-lamrim/lamrim-authors-biographies/
    - 48
      
      Joanne on September 3, 2014 at 11:27 pm
      Reply
      
      Someone mentioned today on Norbu’s blog that Trijang Rinpoche wrote songs to the Dalai Lama: “There are popular songs composed by Trijang Rinpoche in the early years of exile in praise of the Dalai Lama being the reincarnation of Avalokeshwara. These songs are sung in school specially by TIPA.”
49

Sam Hoff on September 3, 2014 at 2:08 pm
Reply

Maybe another point is that Trijang Rinpoche taught the termas of Chokgyur Lingpa.

Does NKT practice Dzogchen?
50

Sam Hoff on September 3, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Reply

I am creating the first ever sadhana that allows one to practice Dolgyal as a yidam i.e. the 2 stages.

Instead of Buddhahood, it leads to one becoming a gyalpo.
- 51
  
  Sam Hoff on September 3, 2014 at 2:27 pm
  Reply
  
  For this sadhana, instead of a traditional thangka, I print the image of Shugden on a roll of toilet paper.
  
  That way its easily transportable.
52

Sam Hoff on September 3, 2014 at 11:42 pm
Reply

Wait a minute.

This translation of Music Delightning an Ocean of Protectors is done by Shugdenpas?

That’s means the original is probably even MORE sectarian.
- 53
  
  Dorje on September 4, 2014 at 10:22 am
  Reply
  
  I think the biggest difference is overplaying the supposedly enlightened nature and underplaying the worldly mundane aspect. They even subtly spin and mistranslate the title and subtitle. The title is “dam can rgya mtsho dges pa’i rol mo” ie. it refers to “oath bound” protectors not enlightened dharma protectors (chos skyong). The subtle doesn’t call dogyal “the supreme protector of the conqueror Manjushri Tsongkhapa’s teachings.” It calls dolgyal the “supreme god protecting the teachings of the virtuous.” (dge ldan bstan pa bsrung ba’i lha mchog), neither Manjushri nor Tsongkhapa get a mention. I know it amounts to the same thing, but these subtle differences are designed to emphasise one viewpoint whilst downplaying another. In the text often when dogyal is referred to as a gyalpo they translate it as king but when gyalpo spirits are referred to they keep the Tibetan.
  Another point of interest is that dogyal isn’t the only worldly spirit that Trijang Rinpoche promotes to enlightened emanation status. He does the same with Dorje Legpa and Pehar/Nechung, so all the dolgyalpas criticising HH Dalai Lama for ‘relying on’ Nechung should read what their lineage lama Trijang Rinpoche wrote about him. According to the book, Nechung is vitally important for the arising of dolgyal in the first place.
  - 54
    
    tenpel on September 4, 2014 at 11:29 am
    Reply
    
    Thank you Dorje for this clarification!
55

Khedrup on September 4, 2014 at 11:11 am
Reply

“I’m not sure what you mean by the positions of the shugdenpas and non-shugdenpas. It seems to me there are at least three ‘sides’: Gelugpa’s that support dogyal, Gelugpas that oppose dogyal but are apologists for Trijang Rinpoche, and non-Gelugpas. The version you present falls into the second category.”

I think that this over simplifies the various very nuanced Gelugpa traditions. All of my Gelug teachers have found themselves on the “oppose Dolgyal” side of this controversy (thank goodness), but their approaches as to how to deal with this vary. I notice a real difference in terms of how the various generations deal with it.

For the older lamas I know, with the exception of one, most of them had received teachings directly from Trijiang Rinpoche. So although they are very clear about the errors of Shugden worship, due to issues of their direct link with TR through receiving teachings, they tend to be very cautious about criticizing his qualities apart from the actual issue of Shugden worship. (They would be less likely to call him out for sectarianism, for example.)

It is also important to note that a great deal of this controversy is shaped by the Gelug lamas who made it out to India. They tended to be students of Pabongkha Rinpoche but there are many great lamas of the tradition who either had no links with Dolgyal at all or a troubled feeling about the practice even if they participated in public pujas (like Ling Rinpoche). Taktra Rinpoche, for example, was never into it and was one of HHDL’s first tantric masters, bestowing the Pure Vision initiations upon the young Dalai Lama.

The younger Gelug lamas I know do not have a direct link with TR and have for the most part received their initiations from other masters. So while they maintain respect for him as a lineage master, they are also more willing to talk about the problematic aspects of his sectarianism. Also, there is a growing awareness that the Pabongkhapa movement, although it produced some excellent tantric liturgy and teachings, also endangered the traditional emphasis on scholastic endeavour in the Gelug tradition, and the traditional reliance on the Indian Treatises and works of Yab sey Sum (LTK and his two disciples).

The lama who I work with as a translator is of the young generation and TRULY a Gelug Rimeypa. He took teachings (in the Sera Jey prayer hall) from Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok along with hundreds of other monks. He has taught on non-Gelug texts such as Parting from the Four Attachments and Words of My Perfect teacher just as frequently as from the works of Lama Tsongkhapa and Gyaltsabje. He has also told me that Nyingma has been in Sera Jey from the very beginning- indeed, the only annual tantric group retreat in the monastery is on Tamdrin Yangsang (Most Secret Hayagriva), which every Sera Jey monk attends, this practice is clearly Nyingma in origin.

So as the modern Gelugs affiliated with HHDL mature, the new generation will become increasingly Rimed in its approach. This has started even with the older generation of Buxaul teachers such as Lama Zopa Rinpoche, who sponsored very elaborate series of initiations from HH Sakya Trizin such as the Wangya Norbu Tangwa in Dehra Dhun, for the benefit of a large group of gelug tulkus and geshes.

His Holiness Sakya Trizin, HH Karmapa, Chobgye Trichen Rinpoche and the late Trulshik Rinpoche have all given teachings at various Gelug centres that I am familiar with.

My feeling is that it is this increasingly non-sectarian orientation which alarms staunch sectarians like Kelsang Gyatso. Which is a shame, because as we know Gelug since its origin has been an eclectic mix of several different traditions, especially when it comes to the practice of Tantra.

The foundational emphasis on scholastic study of the Indian treatises is the real basis of the Gelug tradition, along with the works of Lama Tsongkhapa and his sons. Along with that, one’s practice in the words of my younger teacher “can only be enriched by the study of other traditions, not confused”.

To assert that the Gelug lineage that needs to be protected is the later innovations of Pabongkhapa, and not the scholastic tradition of studying the treatises, shows in my opinion an ignorance of Lama Tzongkhapa’s writings, where he states very clearly what the priorities of a practitioner of his system should be.

In fact, what the NKT refers to as Tzongkhapa’s tradition actually isn’t. It isn’t even the simplified Tzongkhapa that Phabongkhapa presented. It is Kelsang Gyatsoism. This becomes abundantly clear when one studied the history of the Ganden Tradition and the works composed by Tzongkhapa himself.
- 56
  
  Dorje on September 4, 2014 at 12:42 pm
  Reply
  
  Indeed, Khedrup, in adding the ‘position’ of Gelugpas that oppose dolgyal but to some degree apologise for or seek to excuse Trijang Rinpoche I was trying to show it wasn’t just a simple ‘for’ or ‘against’ dolgyal. This issue is uncomfortable for many who take Trijang Rinpoche as a direct or lineage lama and different people respond to that in different ways, acknowledging Trijang Rinpoche’s role in the spread of this teaching and its violent sectarianism to varying degrees. The Yellow Book and Zemey Tulku have been used as a convenient scapegoat by some that would like to limit the negative repercussions this teaching would have on the reputations of those that propagated it. In saying people should ignore the Yellow Book, Kelsang Gyatso was asking that we all ignore this aspect of the dolgyal cult so he is free to spread his fluffy bunny version unopposed.
  Opponents of the cult also focus far too much on the Yellow Book, in my opinion, and seem to neglect the fact that Dagpo, Pabongkha and Trijang Rinpoches all taught that Dolgyal kills nonsectarian Gelugpas in their own teachings.
  In limiting the spread of this cult, HH Dalai Lama has shown great courage, giving religious freedom to Gelugpas who can take teachings from various sources as you suggest without being threatened with ‘untimely death’. His Holiness has protected Tsongkhapa’s tradition, maintaining the richness of the Gelug tradition rather than the innovations and narrow dogmatism of Pabongkha.
57

Sam Hoff on September 5, 2014 at 4:29 am
Reply

Please elaborate on Dagpo
- 58
  
  Dorje on September 5, 2014 at 7:14 pm
  Reply
  
  Praise to Shugden apparently written by Dagpo (dwags po ‘jam dpal lhun grub) Rinpoche is included in Trijang Rinpoche’s book, the Music Delighting the Ocean of Protectors. The translation is explicitly about Shugden and recounts the previous lives and activities as well as actions and stories of killing, etc. in this life. Trijang Rinpoche’s text is a verse by verse commentary on Dagpo’s ‘root text.’
  That it may not be by Dagpo Rinpoche is interesting and maybe not unprecedented. Trijang Rinpoche’s book also includes the prayer to dogyal supposedly written by the Fifth Dalai Lama, which is apparently not included in his collected works and is of dubious provenance.
  TBRC doesn’t help much as there is hardly anything on there at all about Dagpo Rinpoche. One Lam Rim text and the note that his biography is in Phabongkha’s collected works.
  I’m of the opinion that Phabongkha was pivotal in the promotion of this protector and in the inclusion of sectarianism into its cult. I think those that both preceded him and followed him in the lineage didn’t share his sectarianism to such a degree but, as with Trijang Rinpoche and Zemey Tulku, they repeated the sectarian teachings because they were inextricably bound up with the cult and part of the lineage teachings. Kelsang Gyatso doesn’t teach that dogyal kills people for taking teachings from other traditions but does say ‘pure and faithful [ie. exclusive] practitioners’ are helped by dogyal.
59

Khedrup on September 5, 2014 at 11:14 am
Reply

There will be more information on Takphu/Dakpo Rinpoche’s view on Shugden available when some translations are completed – there are people working on this,capable people. His view on Shugden was actually quite ambiguous, not nearly as cut and dry as NKT/ISC/TIbetan Shugden lamas would have us believe. As soon as the relevant materials are available in translation I will forward them to interested parties. From what I have read (a limited amount, since I want my studies not to be consumed by this controversy), it is quite clear to me Pabongkhapa greatly elevated the status of Shugden from what his teacher presents in his work.
- 60
  
  tenpel on September 5, 2014 at 12:04 pm
  Reply
  
  Thank you. It might be also important to note that Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche was not a full sectarian either. He hold different lineages not only the Gelug school lineage. It would be good to gather together what lineages he hold and transmitted. Trijang Rinpoche was also aware that Nyingma masters had problems with Shugden.
  
  HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche humorously rejected an invitation of Kyabje Triang Rinpoche. (You find in Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche’s autobiography »Brilliant Moon …«):
  
  The Dalai Lama said he couldn’t speak as well as I could without preparation; I felt rather embarrassed and said that whatever he said was fine.
  
  After the mandala offering they sat me between the Dalai Lamas tutors, Ling Rinpoche and Trichang Rinpoche. Ling Rinpoche thanked me for giving such a good speech, and Trichang Rinpoche joked, “Well, the Nying-mapas really made some speech, didn’t they!”
  
  Joking I said, “Did the Nyingmapas make a lion roar to the learned ones from Ganden?”
  
  “Yes, very good,” he said.
  
  When they were together, Trichang Rinpoche used to make jokes, and Ling Rinpoche used to laugh a lot. Trichang Rinpoche said he had to give teachings on Khecari in the Children’s Home and asked me to come for lunch before that. I thanked him but wasn’t able to accept his invitation. At that time I had a very small place, so he said I could stay at his house. We both had a good laugh when I replied that I didn’t dare to stay in his house as I was afraid that Shukten would hit me.
  
  Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche mentions also that Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö was afraid of Shugden.
  
  If you see that Kagyuepas and Nyingmapas (including some Sakyas and Gelugpas) have always feared and disliked the practice and have rejected it as being harmful I wonder how any who holds a Bodhisattva attitude – not harming any sentient being – can cling so much to such a practice? This is very hard for me to understand and to accept. Out of compassion, I think, a Bodhisattva should let go what harms others.
  - 61
    
    jigmeyeshe on September 5, 2014 at 12:18 pm
    Reply
    
    I am sorry but I think you have misread this answer from Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche – They laughed at the idea that Shugden would ‘hit him’ if he stayed there!! That does not indicate fear!! It indicates dismissal..so absurd it would be if Shugden could harm him – just not possible!!!! And note, they both laughed!!!
    - 62
      
      jigmeyeshe on September 5, 2014 at 1:12 pm
      Reply
      
      And I have never read that Jamyang Khyentse Chokyi Lodro was ‘afraid’ of Shugden – he was one of the most powerful teachers the Rime tradition ever had. That someone warns of the dangers does not mean that they ‘fear’ them. Can you quote your source please?
      - 63
        
        tenpel on September 5, 2014 at 7:22 pm
        Reply
        
        I understood this as Tibetan humor and politeness. The key information is that he refused to accept the invitation and mentioned Shugden as the reason – even if jokingly.
        
        The Dalai Lama told when the 16th Karmapa visited Trijang Rinpoche, Trijang Rinpoche covered up the offerings to Shugden. However, fear was expressed by Thai Situ Rinpoche
        
        We Kagyu followers normally do not mention this name without fear. There is no Shugden practitioner among Kagyu followers. The reason why we fear the one I name just now, is because we believe that he causes obstacles to spiritual practice and brings discord in families and among the community of monks.
        
        And as you see in the autobiography it is said that Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö was afraid of Shugden.
      - 64
        
        tenpel on September 5, 2014 at 8:06 pm
        Reply
        
        You find in that book »Brilliant Moon: The Autobiography of Dilgo Khyentse« by Dilgo Khyentse page 114 the following:
        
        … and Khyentse Chokyi Lodro mentioned that he was afraid of Shukten, the Geluk protector. I thought that this might have some special significance …
    - 65
      
      tenpel on September 5, 2014 at 8:20 pm
      Reply
      
      BTW; I didn’t say that Dilgo Khyentse said that he feared Shugden …
      - 66
        
        jigmeyeshe on September 5, 2014 at 8:30 pm
        Reply
        
        I misunderstood your adding of ‘also’!!!
        
        67
        
        Joanne on September 5, 2014 at 11:01 pm
        Reply
        
        And of course, you’ve heard the story that HH Dalai Lama tells often? Back before he stopped worshipping Shugden, he wanted to receive a Nyingma tantric teaching from a Nyingma master and asked Ling Rinpoche his opinion. Ling Rinpoche expressed fear over HH doing this, because of the risk of harm from Shugden.
        
        68
        
        Joanne on September 5, 2014 at 11:02 pm
        
        I don’t think HH used the word fear– something more like Ling Rinpoche was hesitant or reluctant– but clearly because of potential harm.
      - 69
        
        Namkhah on September 5, 2014 at 11:57 pm
        Reply
        
        It was Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche that requested Dhonthog Rinpoche to compose a polemic against dolgyal.
        
        70
        
        Sam Hoff on September 6, 2014 at 4:23 pm
        Reply
        
        source?
        
        71
        
        Namkhah on September 6, 2014 at 9:47 pm
        
        Its in Dhonthog’s book p. 42-43, The Earth Shaking Thunder of True Word, Sapan Publications, 1996.
        “My confidence to write his timely refutation on the facts and nature of this issue is due to a letter I received from my master , Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche Rabsal Dawa…”
        
        72
        
        Dorje on September 7, 2014 at 1:20 am
        
        Dhongthog Rinpoche’s book ‘Earth Shaking Thunder’ says his lama Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche asked him to respond to the Yellow Book, but Dhongthog Rinpoche wrote a few refutataions and rejoinders and I don’t think it is clear which one Dilgo Khyentse requested.
        
        73
        
        jigmeyeshe on September 7, 2014 at 1:14 pm
        
        I was told that there were at least two other ‘refutations’ as books published at around the same time as Dhongthog Rinpoche’s, also by people connected to Dzongsar Shedra. I even have the titles written in a notebook somewhere! I was told to contact Dhongthog Rinpoche if I was interested – he is still alive in Seattle. http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Dhongthog_Rinpoche
        They were asked to stop publishing, however. I can’t remember the name of the source that told me but that it was His Holiness the Dalai Lama who asked the publications to stop.
        
        We can say that there is definitely a harsh sectarian thread through the Shugden issue, that it provokes response, and that this thread is what His Holiness has tried to cut but it has appeared in a more ‘modern’ guise, allied to the opportunities given by technology and the media.
        
        If Shugden was originally ‘promoted’ for political reasons during the exodus in 1959, then surely for political reasons, it can be decreased as well. Is it possible to show that there was a ‘reason’ to promote Shugden during difficult times – to keep the Gelugs together – and that this was only that – a response to trauma? But that some people became very attached to that practice for this very reason – as a ‘safety mechanism’.
        
        Is there anything written in Tibetan, etc that supports this view?
        
        74
        
        tenpel on September 7, 2014 at 10:19 pm
        
        About these disputes and the book titles you can find here quotes by Kapstein and Kay: https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2008/10/01/sectarian-rivalry-the-yellow-book-by-zimey-rinpoche/
    - 75
      
      Dorje on September 5, 2014 at 8:30 pm
      Reply
      
      I think you’ve misread that, Jigme. Many non-Gelugpas, even Sakyapas like Jamyang Khyentse, fear dogyal’s influence. Dogyal is like the bogeyman to Rismedpas. Many people don’t ever utter its name.
      
      “There was a little bit of rain, and Khyentse Chökyi Lodro mentioned that he was afraid of Shukten, the Geluk protector. I thought that this might have some special significance, so I made no reply. While I was wondering what he might have meant, Khyentse Chökyi Lodro repeated, “I’m really worried. Could you visualize yourself as Guru Rinpoche to help us?”
      Since it was a request from my spiritual master, I chanted some Guru Rinpoche mantras and visualized myself as Guru Rinpoche. After a while Khyentse Chökyi Lodro said, “That’s good. I feel better now, I’m sure everything will be alright.”
      Brilliant Moon p114
      - 76
        
        Adamo on September 6, 2014 at 6:44 am
        Reply
        
        Sometimes, when reading of all this ghost-stories, I help myself with the idea, that a spirit could be as well something like a “mental obscuration”, a collecticively shared deep sitting certain point of view, thats creates a lot of trouble.
        The NKT seems to be a good example for this phenomen. “Dolgyal” is doing his job, trying hard to become an obstacle maker, but is more or less the result of mental stuff as power competition, pride, hurt feelings and so on, that maintains itself for generations.
        
        Tibet was a place where permanently fighting was going on, between the all the sects, warlords, clans, throneholder and so on, not only Tibet was so an easy target for the communists, but all this conflicts have reached the west in the past few decades, together with the teachings of the Buddha.
        
        So a master could be scared of Dolgyal, even while not being afraid of it. Its just the impact of those “negative energies” , he considers as harmful to sentient beings.
77

Sam Hoff on September 6, 2014 at 7:29 pm
Reply

An academic needs to make THIRD PARTY translations of:

1. Phabongka’s statement that all Sakyas, Nyingmas and Kagyus go to hell.
2. Trijang Rinpoche’s “Music Delighting an Ocean of Protectors”.
- 78
  
  Namkhah on September 8, 2014 at 12:36 am
  Reply
  
  Sam, you may be interested in ‘The Lamp that Enlightens Narrow Minds: The Life and Times of a Realized Master, Khyentse Chökyi Wangchug’, written by his nephew Chögyal Namkhai Norbu. This book has a few references to dolgyal. In a footnote it reads (in part) “The cult is characterized by the fanaticism and the sectarianism of its adepts, who stained themselves with crimes and violent actions in their relations with other schools and those who opposed them within their own school”
  
  Samten G. Karmay’s ‘The Arrow and the Spindle: Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet’ – Vol. I and II has some references to the origin of the cult, Dechen Nyingpo, Trijang and Domo Geshe. The latter’s Dungkar monastery was established in a largely Bonpo area, as was Rabten gompa in Rongpo. The dolgyalpas referred to the Bonpos as “blind barbarians” and “unclean”. Ironically, earlier in his life Karmay had studied (grammar or lorig or something) at Ganden which he described as ‘filthy’!
- 79
  
  Sam Hoff on September 8, 2014 at 2:30 am
  Reply
  
  Phabongka’s statement of everyone going to Hell is in Sam van Schaik’s “Tibet: A History”.
  
  So this is a third party academic source.
80

Tdamdul on September 6, 2014 at 9:00 pm
Reply

Trichang Rinpoche and 16th Gyalwa Karmapa were good lama ‘buddies’ (Tsiphur being very close to Lhasa in Tibet).
Tenpel also briefly mentioned this – but I will repeat it here.
Once during a meeting of all the religious heads in early exile; 16th HK dropped by Trichang Rinpoche’s residence in Dharamsala. But just before His arrival the latter quickly had all images and paraphernalia attributed to dhogyal packed away – hidden altogether. This account was mentioned by HH Dalai Lama during one of his talks; who in turn was related the story by none other than Trichang Rinpoche Himself!

All this INTIMIDATION with stories in the yellow book and passed down to the COMMON MAN as teaching is completely down the wrong path. HHDL mentioned this too in another talk. That it was so wrong to take a protector all based on the fact & environment of FEAR. That He himself had appropriated the deity as taught by his teachers but had dropped it and sought protection & refuge with Guru Rinpoche.
The regular layman was/is seduced by dhogyal’s promise of Wealth and prosperity AND destruction of one’s enemy. Mostly all their knowledge of THE teachings is about those three points & APPEASING dhogyal.

I totally agree with the previous comment – ALL the Non dhogyal traditions consider negative energy and ultimately negative karma from this gyalpo’s appropriation. Dhogyal worship is anathema to them.

Someone mentioned something about something being turned into a pumpkin – in that same theme & in the common layman’s term – HH Dalai Lama has broken the dhogyal spell.

Also lets not forget the works of Chatral Rinpoche and the previous Dundjom Rinpoche in response to the yellow book.

Geshe Kalsang & NKT- have managed to completely white wash dhogyal off its ugly history and present it as a WISDOM protector. So now the NKT people are aspiring to become supreme GYALPOS; that’s what it boils down to.
- 81
  
  Sam Hoff on September 6, 2014 at 10:38 pm
  Reply
  
  Please elaborate on Chatral Rinpoche and the previous Dundjom Rinpoche
  - 82
    
    Dorje on September 7, 2014 at 8:30 am
    Reply
    
    Chatral Rinpoche wrote the “Rain of Adamant Fire – a holy discourse based upon scriptures and reason annihilating the poisonous seeds of the wicked speech of Dzemey Tulku Lobsang Palden.” This was a response the the ‘Yellow Book’ where Chatral Rinpoche is mentioned as Reting Rinpoche’s lama, teaching him dzogchen, the cause, according to the book, for him dying.
    Not sure about Dudjom Rinpoche, though he was certainly very opposed to the spirit worship. He did compose prayers for Guru Rinpoche to help in times when people took refuge in gyalgong spirits.
    - 83
      
      Namkhah on September 7, 2014 at 11:05 pm
      Reply
      
      HH Dudjom Rinpoche devised and published an anti-dolgyal or amulet as a skillful means that is very popular in Tibet. It is like the yantras in The Secret Visions of the Fifth Dalai Lama (Serindia) that were not intended for a wide audience. Dudjom Rinpoche’s charm has been reproduced innumerable times on stickers, posters and even pre-paid phone cards in China and is available on Taobao from many online vendors.
      
      https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/101708872825414340024/101708872825414340024/posts/8bUbFc9bSWK?pid=6053823587854235538&oid=101708872825414340024
- 84
  
  jigmeyeshe on September 7, 2014 at 12:22 am
  Reply
  
  Is it significant, seeing as the NKT followers are becoming ‘supreme Gyalpos’ (!), that the NKT do not teach any of the Buddha Nature texts or even allow students to gain any real familiarity with the basic nature of their own minds before filling that space with Shugden Guru Yoga and Highest Yoga Tantra?
  - 85
    
    Dorje on September 7, 2014 at 10:43 am
    Reply
    
    Gelugpas have never been that keen on those texts.
  - 86
    
    john6747 on September 8, 2014 at 7:54 am
    Reply
    
    Neil Elliot, who was known as Gen Thubten, taught the meaning of going for refuge at Losang Dragpa when it was based at Keighley in 1993. The emphasis was on the three jewels being the only source of refuge. These were the only source of protection for our dharma practise. To follow the cycle of Lamrim was at the base of all our practise. He emphasised the need for personal development through looking at our own minds and the need to gradually ‘improve’ our subjective experience until we achieve our goal. This is what was attractive when I first attended classes a couple of years before this teaching. We know the subsequent history of Neil Elliot but the teachings he gave remain valid. Unfortunately, when listening to the recording of those teachings I find an irony. He is sitting there giving the teachings, with a knowledge of what was happening in his private life.
    Maybe he knew the impossibility of an unenlightened person teaching these texts unless we allow that our teachers are also struggling with the same problems as us.
    
    It would appear we have enough to do without the hindrance of Shugden or following a Tantric path.
- 87
  
  Sam Hoff on September 7, 2014 at 9:32 pm
  Reply
  
  Yes I am creating the first ever sadhana where one practices Dolgyal as a yidam i.e. the stages.
  
  Dolgyal’s consort is his lion.
  
  Instead of Buddhahood it leads one to becoming a gyalpo.
  - 88
    
    Sam Hoff on September 7, 2014 at 9:33 pm
    Reply
    
    Typo. I meant the 2 stages.
89

Khedrup on September 8, 2014 at 7:33 am
Reply

“Gelugpas have never been that keen on those texts.”

Uttaratantra is commonly taught, though not a part of the Geshe curriculum it is widely used as a reference book.
Teachings on the Sublime Continuum are part of the FPMT Basic Program, for example, and I remember that at Nalanda Monastery 3 months of study was dedicated to it:
http://shop.fpmt.org/Basic-Program-Online-Sublime-Continuum-of-the-Mahayana-Part-1-The-Tathagata-Essence_p_1972.html

All of the Five Texts of Maitreya, including the Uttaratantrashastra/Sublime Continuum are held by traditional Gelugpas to be “revealed scripture” if you will (from Maitreya to Asanga). Gyaltsabje wrote a commentary on the Uttaratantra, the fundamental text on Buddha Nature, called “The Furthese Everlasting Continuum.”

What is true is that there is not the vast amount of commentarial literature on this particular topic in the Gelug tradition that you find in the other traditions, especially the Kagyu and Nyingma. My personal opinion is that this is unfortunate, as is the fact that it is not included as a separate topic in the Geshe curriculum whereas I think it is in the Shedra philosophical studies programs.

Having said that, the material is there, and certainly the 12 traditional geshes who put together the Basic Program curriculum thought it was important enough to include a rather large module within that on the Uttaratantra.
- 90
  
  Sam Hoff on September 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm
  Reply
  
  All sutra (Madhyamaka or Uttaratantra) is below tantra.
  
  Gelugpas need to read Rongzom
  - 91
    
    Dorje on September 8, 2014 at 6:45 pm
    Reply
    
    But they wouldn’t agree with Rongdzom, just as they wouldn’t agree with ‘positive’ interpretations of emptiness found in ‘shentong’ interpretations of the Ratnagotravibhaga. And why should they? Changing the kangyur to erase positive references to the ultimate, as Pabongkha apparently did, is out of order, but we don’t all have to accept only one interpretation, Sam, even if it is your favourite.
    - 92
      
      Sam Hoff on September 9, 2014 at 5:43 am
      Reply
      
      Actually the problem is Gelugs pushing their peculiar views on everyone else.
- 93
  
  Dorje on September 8, 2014 at 6:31 pm
  Reply
  
  But for Kagyupas it is totally fundamental. You cannot understand the Kagyu interpretation of the Buddhadharma without the Uttaratantrashastra/Ratnagotravibhaga.
  - 94
    
    Sam Hoff on September 8, 2014 at 10:11 pm
    Reply
    
    Not at all.
    
    Eighth Karampa distinguished between sutric Buddha Nature and tantric Buddha Nature.
    They are not the same.
    - 95
      
      Dorje on September 9, 2014 at 11:00 am
      Reply
      
      Yes, but you can only distinguish between the two if you understand what is meant by both and you really need the Uttaratantra and Kagyu commentaries on it to understand what they mean by ‘Sutric Buddha Nature’.
      - 96
        
        Sam Hoff on September 9, 2014 at 5:42 pm
        Reply
        
        I don’t want to know about sutric Buddha Nature.
97

Sam Hoff on September 21, 2014 at 6:26 am
Reply

How can Shugden be Manjushri **AND** Drak-ba Gyel-tsen?

Does this mean Drak-ba Gyel-tsen is Manjushri?
98

Shugden and the New Kadampa Tradition: Fear of Ghosts | Tibetan Buddhism :: Struggling With Diffi·Cult Issues on November 12, 2014 at 10:31 pm
Reply

[…] I quote from Tenzin’s blog: […]
99

Jampa Dechen on July 31, 2017 at 5:24 am
Reply

several schools for wisdom and people pay for this.

	tenpel on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…
	Stardust on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…
	tenpel on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…
	anonymous on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…
	Alan J.W. on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…
	tenpel on Karmapa Agrees to Multimillion…
	anonymous on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…
	Tim on Whitewashing, Dishonesty &…

Trijang Rinpoche’s view on Dorje Shugden / Dolgyal and why Shugden harms sentient beings

Trijang Rinpoche’s view**

See also

The protesters never asked for a dialogue

OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS THE DALAI LAMA FROM THE DORJE SHUGDEN INTERNATIONAL COALITION

DECLARATION

Update 31 Oct 2014

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Related